Quiet Muzzle Brake?

[Old Bill Dibble]

Ok, I know quiet and muzzle brake are not often used together in the same sentence or paragraph. However; I had an idea and if it occurred to me, then it must have been thought of by someone else already.

The ATF says that any device used to reduce sound is a suppressor and needs a stamp. But where do we hold the ruler?

If we hold the ruler just aft of the muzzle and measure db's then it would seem to follow that any device added on after that the registers about the same is not a suppressor?

Would a properly designed muzzle brake that reduces recoil and keeps sound at to the "normal" level run afoul of any Federal Witchery?

[MarkCO]

They actually have a test protocol. Some muzzle devices have been ruled a suppressor as a result.

There are 3 comps on the market that have minimal concussion and to most, sound no different than shooting a flash-hider. There are a lot of folks that use them just because there is no increased concussion. They are the Seekins ATC, the Dynamic Resistance and the Gas Hog. A friend of mine designed the Dynamic Resistance and I designed the Gas Hog.

[zukiphile]

The ATF says that any device used to reduce sound is a suppressor and needs a stamp.

As I recall it, the language and interpretation used by ATF address the purpose of the designer, not merely the result. So if I make a silencer, but I just stink at it and it produces no sound reduction, I still run afoul of regs.

Would a properly designed muzzle brake that reduces recoil and keeps sound at to the "normal" level run afoul of any Federal Witchery?

I wouldn't think so. You've posited that sound isn't reduced. I'm wondering if the law you might transgress is a law of physics though. If your device throws so much gas rearward that it reduces recoil, how could it possibly not increase noise aft of the muzzle?

FWIW, I have an old Lavange linear on a 20 inch AR. I think it is less punishing than an A2 when firing from a covered bench. The several ounces out at the end may marginally diminish muzzle rise. It's certainly no worse than any other flashhider or brake, might be a bit better, and we have to screw something onto the end anyway.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Excellent I knew there had to be a few out there. I just wonder why they are not the standard? Muzzle brakes on the whole are really loud.

[MarkCO]

Because the old standby of muzzle brakes is that it has to be loud to be effective. Efficiency and effectiveness are different animals.

A jet is "propelled" by "throwing" mass out the back of the jet engine creating thrust. A jet is stopped by "grabbing" mass creating braking. That is a "lay" description of course.

With a comp, redirection of gas (throwing) and impingement (grabbing) are both in play. Most comps are designed by trial and error, and many were designed using a stream of water to fine tune. But water is not heated, not compressible and not supersonic. Heated supersonic compressible flow is a difficult math problem and all 3 that I mentioned were modeled (and compared to other designs) using CFD packages that appropriately model the conditions.

All that said, comps are not very efficient all in all because the number, and variance there of, of parameters is large. Also, while one comp feels "great" to one person with one set of conditions, it won't be the most effective for all shooters in all conditions. Gas system length, buffer set-up, load and reciprocating mass are bigger factors that just a comp. While my comp is very unique, you won't ever see me saying it is the best, because there is no "best" when it comes to comps. Just different ways of controlling one of the many parameters. There are some comps that overdrive the gun (down or sideways) for some sets of parameters, but for others are fine. The three I listed tend to reduce recoil a little less, but be more neutral for a wider set of parameters, which was the overall intent in the first place.

[jackstrawIII]

What you're looking for is a compensator.

[ronl]

Here's one thing I've never understood about comps. Most focus the gas horizontally, rather than vertically. One of the most effective brakes I have used is a cheap Tapco AK brake, which is a vertically compensated brake. Not really much of a lateral increase in ambient noise. Why aren't there more people using a vertically directed gas system? I want a brake that mitigates muzzle rise, and a vertical system seems to make more sense to me.

[briandg]

I believe that intent is part of the ATF suppressor definition. no, a homemade suppressor isn't going to be given any quarter if it fails to lower sound levels. If a person is caught with a home made device that's a plastic tube full of feathers the intent is clearly to use it as a sound absorbing device and it will be treated as such by authorities.

[zukiphile]

Here's one thing I've never understood about comps. Most focus the gas horizontally, rather than vertically. One of the most effective brakes I have used is a cheap Tapco AK brake, which is a vertically compensated brake. Not really much of a lateral increase in ambient noise. Why aren't there more people using a vertically directed gas system? I want a brake that mitigates muzzle rise, and a vertical system seems to make more sense to me.

Ron, I think you just described the difference between a brake and a compensator.

If you want the device to be neutral, you will vent gas in equal amounts in opposite directions. If you choose 12 and 6 oclock for a rifle, your muzzle blast is going to kick up a bunch of junk. 3 and 9, or all the way around won't concentrate the blast toward the ground.

I've read reviews of a few AR compensators that move the muzzle down with each shot, though I've never used one.

[jmorris]

The ATF says that any device used to reduce sound is a suppressor and needs a stamp.

That's not what they say.

This will reduce the sound and doesn't need a stamp.

Edit: photo too large to post, click link to view.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQ9nd6p_9Y4/maxresdefault.jpg

[briandg]

Yes, I believe that the requirements of the statutes right up front limit the regulation of "sound suppressors" to attached or attachable. In other points, the regulations include specific fixtures or elements that are considered sort of proof that an item is a "silencer." I don't believe that a thread on muzzle extension similar to flash hiders, as long as it has no additional and regulated compontents can or will be considered illegal.

The legal definitions of a silencer include any device that has baffles, muffling components, other items that could function to lower sound output. Having a device with any components that are ordinarily parts of a silence attached to a device that can be attached to a silencer is illegal.

This part of the code is intended to make it easier to regulate home made silencers.

There was a murder once that involved a guy who created a tape on silencer with a piece of plastic tubing, tennis balls, SOS pads, and other stuff, and it would have been illegal. Tennis balls are baffles. SOS pads are muffling components. Duct taping the thing to the thing to the rifle isn't the same as screwing it on, but it is attachable and detachable, and made to fit the firearm, so bob's your uncle. Right there you had three things that defined it as a "firearms silencer." The only question was intent. It may have also been intended for use as a lawn mower muffler.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by briandg

Yes, I believe that the requirements of the statutes right up front limit the regulation of "sound suppressors" to attached or attachable.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in federal law that defines a silencer as being attached or attachable. The law makes no mention of exempting stationary devices such as the one jmorris pictured in post # 10. (On a side note: Jmorris, can you please edit your post and shrink that picture down to a normal size? It's so huge that's it's messing with my browser. Thanks!)

Here is the federal definition of a silencer, and it's found in 18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24):

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

The ATF exempts stationary sound suppression devices from the silencer laws because it's their opinion they're not legally silencers, but as far as I know that's just their opinion; there's no law that explicitly backs up that opinion.

[briandg]

Good to know what the laws actualy say. here are my thoughts on how it ought to be. The last part of it is where the stationary vs attachable etc comes in.

I wonder if you carry it around and put it on the bench or ground, it still would qualify as stationary, since it's not in your hands as you use it.

this all depends on what the laws really define as portable and what the atf accepts, but if a person can make a muffler the size of a shoe box, it would still be portable enough to use in sniping and maybe illegal. I don't believe that something as big as a suitcase would be held as a portable device.

IMO, and I'm probably not in touch with reality, the law should be shut down at whether or not the silencer can be hand held while shooting. A muffler box the size of a file cabinet that you can carry back and forth to your range shouldn't be counted as an regulated suppressor.

In a sense, there is a difference between "portable" and "transportable" that nobody ever actually uses. "portable" by some definitions means something that could be easily carried by hand. That would leave "transportable" as something that is easily moved, but not necessarily transported by hand.
IMO, this is how the laws should be laid out. By whether or not the thing can be carried from place to place and used pretty much immediately as iif it was a one piece unit.

[jmorris]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in federal law that defines a silencer as being attached or attachable. The law makes no mention of exempting stationary devices such as the one jmorris pictured in post # 10. (On a side note: Jmorris, can you please edit your post and shrink that picture down to a normal size? It's so huge that's it's messing with my browser. Thanks!)

Here is the federal definition of a silencer, and it's found in 18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24):

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm...

Fixed the photo.

The letter from the ATF is the answer to such "device". Note the not portable or attached part and "more like a sound-absorbing chamber" part.

If they wouldn't let that go, an indoor gun range would be a suppressor as would any sound reduction measures they put in place.

[jmorris]

One is attached and goes with the rifle and the other is just an object near the rifle and independent of it.



If the barrel was a suppressor, the wall to the left would be too.

Or to look at it another way, if you fired from inside something (deer stand) what you were inside would become a silencer and you would need to form 1 it before you used it or become a criminal.

[briandg]

All I know is that the idea of a "suppressed firearm" as you commonly hear it referred to has gone clean off of the rails if a device that lies on the ground or sits on a bench is a controlled device. That strikes we as ridiculous.

The pillow on my bed with the pistol under it can be seen as a suppressed firearm if I combine them as a unit, I suppose, but what if I just pick up my pillow to move the gun to the nightstand?

Without spending a few hours at the books I'm tapped.

I would like to see suppressors freely available for rimfire rifles, maybe center fire rifles, but I think th a any suppressors intended for handgun use should still be licensed. Rifle suppressors, unregulated ones could be required to have minimum muzzle length of twelve inches.

I don't figure that we have even the remotest constitutional rights to suppressors. I don't want gang bangers to be able to freely and legally pick one up. I'm not going to argue those points, take it or leave it. Large cans l, legal only when attached to rifles, and no change in the status quo for handguns.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by jmorris

The letter from the ATF is the answer to such "device". Note the not portable or attached part and "more like a sound-absorbing chamber" part.

If they wouldn't let that go, an indoor gun range would be a suppressor as would any sound reduction measures they put in place.

I understand that and I don't disagree with you. My point is simply that nowhere in federal law is there a differentiation made between a portable silencer you attach to your firearm and a stationary silencer that isn't attached.

My comment was in response to your claim that the law specifically exempts non-attachable sound suppression devices from federal silencer laws, but that's not the case.

EDIT: Thanks for fixing the picture, but you didn't need to get rid of it. You can re-size an embedded picture that's too big by putting [ resize=(a 3-digit number) ] in front of the image link and [ /resize ] after it. (You don't want the spaces inside the brackets, I just added those so it would show up in my post as text.)

[jmorris]

My comment was in response to your claim that the law specifically exempts non-attachable sound suppression devices from federal silencer laws, but that's not the case.

That's why Randall had them send a clarification letter, that I reposted above.

The red underlined parts covering the issue.

[Unclenick]

Agree. I note that the letter of the law refers to "a portable firearm" and the attachment may therefore be implicit so portability is maintained. My reasoning is that since a fixed gun is exempted from silencing restrictions by that wording, it follows that any fixed muffling system then results in a fixed silenced weapon, which is unregulated, vs. a portable silenced weapon. But I'm having to read a lot into it. If there is case law setting precedent with a court decision on this, it would help.

The Finnish allow suppressors to be sold over the counter as accessories with no license required. Apparently over there it is considered rude to shoot outdoors without a suppressor because noise pollution is considered a greater threat than criminal misuse of suppressors. I've read that even in the UK it is easy to get a suppressor permit because of EU noise pollution rules (though that may change after the Brexit is acted upon). Indeed, the Fins report suppressors are very rarely used in crimes, despite ready availability there. It makes some sense when you think about the logistics. You get a larger, harder to conceal weapon, and for a result most rounds are not fully silenced by a suppressor, and certainly supersonic rounds are not. Sound is reduced, but not to a whisper like in the movies. Criminals can't use guns legally now, so if suppressors were a big benefit to their activities, they'd have illegal suppressors now just as they have illegal guns now. I think the Fins have figured that out, but we haven't.

[briandg]

It also begs the question, just how widespread would crime using suppressors be if they were made widely available? It's not like the average thug on the street is going to care about how much noise it's going to make as he kills the man who stole his water. Why would he care? As was said, if you have a six inch can it's going to be the size of a star wars blaster, what sort of punk wants that?

Sure there are a lot of killings that will happen with one. It's hard to define what will happen.

It's not impossible to get one, and the price of the equipment and installation is shocking. I don't really anticipate a flood of sales if they are freed, and I honestly don't expect too much crime associated with it if they are freed.

There are many, many people who want all the noise they can get, so as to spread fear.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by jmorris

That's why Randall had them send a clarification letter, that I reposted above.

The red underlined parts covering the issue.

I understand that completely. I already mentioned that in my first post. Again, there is nowhere in federal law that explicitly differentiates between an attached silencer and a stationary one. Those ATF letters aren't law, they're the ATF's opinion on regulatory guidelines.

This is getting a little off-topic. I don't disagree with any of the facts you've presented. My original post was a direct response to this comment:

Originally Posted by briandg

I believe that the requirements of the statutes right up front limit the regulation of "sound suppressors" to attached or attachable.

And that comment is incorrect. The federal statutes do not explicitly limit the regulation of silencers to those that are attached or attachable. Yes, the ATF is of the opinion that a silencer needs to be portable and attached to the gun (and most courts would probably agree with that opinion), but that's not actually stated in the law.